MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION
Early Language Learning
and Literacy: Neuroscience
Implications for Education
Patricia K. Kuhl1
ABSTRACT—The last decade has produced an explosion
in neuroscience research examining young children’s early
processing of language that has implications for education.
Noninvasive, safe functional brain measurements have now
been proven feasible for use with children starting at birth.
In the arena of language, the neural signatures of learning can
be documented at a remarkably early point in development,
and these early measures predict performance in children’s
language and pre-reading abilities in the second, third, and fifth
year of life, a finding with theoretical and educational import.
There is evidence that children’s early mastery of language
requires learning in a social context, and this finding also
has important implications for education. Evidence relating
socioeconomic status (SES) to brain function for language
suggests that SES should be considered a proxy for the
opportunity to learn and that the complexity of language
input is a significant factor in developing brain areas related
to language. The data indicate that the opportunity to learn
from complex stimuli and events are vital early in life, and that
success in school begins in infancy.
Developmental studies suggest that children learn more and
learn earlier than previously thought. In the arena of language
development, our studies show that children’s early learning
is complex and multifaceted. For example, research shows
that young children rely on what has been called ‘‘statistical
learning,’’ a form of implicit learning that occurs as children
interact in the world, to acquire the language spoken in
their culture. However, new data also indicate that children
require a social setting and social interaction with another
1 Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington
Address correspondence to Patricia K. Kuhl, Institute for Learning &
Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Mailstop 357920, Seattle,
WA 98195; e-mail: pkkuhl@u.washington.edu.
© 2011 the Author
128 Journal Compilation © 2011 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
human being to trigger their computation skills to learn
from exposure to language. These data are challenging brain
scientists to discover how brains actually work—how, in
this case, computational brain areas and social brain areas
mature during development and interact during learning. The
results also challenge educational scientists to incorporate
these findings about the social brain into teaching practices.
Behavioral and brain studies on developing children indicate
that children’s skills, measured very early in infancy, predict
their later performance and learning. For example, measures of
phonetic learning in the first year of life predict language skills
between 18 and 30 months of age, and also predict language
abilities and pre-literacy skills at the age of 5 years. Moreover,
by the age of 5, prior to formal schooling, our studies show that
brain activation in brain areas related to language and literacy
are strongly correlated with the socioeconomic status (SES)
of the children’s families. The implication of these findings
is that children’s learning trajectories regarding language are
influenced by their experiences well before the start of school.
In the next decade, neuroscientists, educators, biologists,
computer scientists, speech and hearing scientists, psycholo-
gists, and linguists will increasingly work together to under-
stand how children’s critical ‘‘windows of opportunity’’ for
learning work, what triggers their inception, and how learn-
ing can be encouraged once the optimal period for learning has
passed. The ultimate goal is to alter the trajectories of learning
to maximize language and literacy skills in all children.
To explore these topics, this review focuses on research in
my laboratory on the youngest language learners—infants in
the first year of life—and on the most elementary units of
language—the consonants and vowels that make up words.
Infants’ responses to the basic building blocks of speech
provide an experimentally accessible porthole through which
we can observe the interaction of nature and nurture in
language acquisition. Recent studies show that infants’ early
processing of the phonetic units in their language predicts
future competence in language and literacy, contributing
to theoretical debates about the nature of language and
Volume 5—Number 3
 Patricia K. Kuhl
emphasizing the practical implications of the research as well
as the potential for early interventions to support language and
literacy. We are also beginning to discover how exposure to
two languages early in infancy produces bilingualism and the
effects of dual-language input on the brain. Bilingual children
inform debates on the critical period, with implications for
education, given the increasing number of bilingual children
in the nation’s schools.
In this review, I will also describe a current working
hypothesis about the relationship between the ‘‘social brain’’
and learning, and its implications for brain development. I
will argue that to ‘‘crack the speech code’’ infants combine a
powerful set of domain-general computational and cognitive
skills with their equally extraordinary social skills (Kuhl,
2007, 2011)—and explore what that means for theory and
practice. Moreover, social experience with more than one
language, either long-term experience as a simultaneous
bilingual or short-term experience with a second language
in the laboratory, is associated with increases in cognitive
flexibility, in adults (Bialystok, 1991), in children (Carlson &
Meltzoff, 2008), and in young infants (Conboy, Sommerville,
& Kuhl, 2008; Conboy, Sommerville, Wicha, Romo, & Kuhl,
2011). Experience alters the trajectory of development in the
young brain.
I have suggested that the social brain—in ways we have
yet to understand—‘‘gates’’ the computational mechanisms
underlying learning in the domain of language (Kuhl, 2007,
2011). The assertion that social factors gate language learning
may explain not only how typically developing children
acquire language, but also why children with autism exhibit
twin deficits in social cognition and language (see Kuhl,
Coffey-Corina, Padden, & Dawson, 2005a for discussion).
Moreover, this gating hypothesis may explain why social
factors play a far more significant role than previously realized
in human learning across domains throughout our lifetimes
(Meltzoff, Kuhl, Movellan, & Sejnowski, 2009).
WINDOWS TO THE YOUNG BRAIN
Rapid advances have been made in noninvasive techniques that
examine language processing in young children (Figure 1).
They include Electroencephalography (EEG)/Event-related
Potentials (ERPs), Magnetoencephalography (MEG), func-
tional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), and Near-
Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS).
ERPs have been widely used to study speech and
language processing in infants and young children (for
reviews, see Conboy, Rivera-Gaxiola, Silva-Pereyra, & Kuhl,
2008; Dehaene-Lambertz, Dehaene, & Hertz-Pannier, 2002;
Friederici, 2005; Kuhl, 2004). ERPs, a part of the EEG, reflect
electrical activity that is time-locked to the presentation of
a specific sensory stimulus (e.g., syllables or words) or a
Volume 5—Number 3
cognitive process (e.g., recognition of a semantic violation
within a sentence or phrase). By placing sensors on a child’s
scalp, the activity of neural networks firing in a coordinated
and synchronous fashion in open field configurations can be
measured, and voltage changes occurring as a function of
cortical neural activity can be detected. ERPs provide precise
time resolution (milliseconds), making them well suited for
studying the high-speed and temporally ordered structure of
human speech. ERP experiments can also be carried out in
populations who cannot provide overt responses because of
age or cognitive impairment, such as children with autism
(Coffey-Corina, Padden, Estes, & Kuhl, 2011; Kuhl et al.,
2005a). However, spatial resolution of the source of brain
activation using EEG has limitations.
MEG is another brain imaging technique that tracks
activity in the brain with exquisite temporal resolution.
The SQUID (superconducting quantum interference device)
sensors located within the MEG helmet measure the minute
magnetic fields associated with electrical currents that are
produced by the brain when it is performing sensory, motor,
or cognitive tasks. MEG allows precise localization of the
neural currents responsible for the sources of the magnetic
fields. Cheour et al. (2004) and Imada et al. (2006) used
new head-tracking methods and MEG to show phonetic
discrimination in newborns and in infants during the first year
of life. Sophisticated head-tracking software and hardware
enables investigators to correct for infants’ head movements,
and allows the examination of multiple brain areas as infants
listen to speech (Imada et al., 2006). Travis et al. (in press)
used MEG to examine the spaciotemporal cortical dynamics
of word understanding in 12- to 18-month-old infants and
adults, and showed that both groups encode lexico-semantic
information in left frontotemporal brain areas, suggesting that
neural mechanisms are established in infancy and operate
across the lifespan. MEG (as well as EEG) techniques are
completely safe and noiseless.
MRI provides static structural/anatomical pictures of the
brain, and can be combined with MEG and/or EEG. Structural
MRIs show anatomical differences in brain regions across the
lifespan, and have recently been used to predict second-
language phonetic learning in adults (Golestani, Molko,
Dehaene, LeBihan, & Pallier, 2007). Structural MRI measures
in young infants identify the size of various brain structures
and these measures correlate with later language abilities
(Ortiz-Mantilla, Choe, Flax, Grant, & Benasich, 2010). When
structural MRI images are superimposed on the physiological
activity detected by MEG or EEG, the spatial localization of
brain activities recorded by these methods can be improved.
fMRI is a popular method of neuroimaging in adults because
it provides high spatial-resolution maps of neural activity
across the entire brain (e.g., Gernsbacher & Kaschak, 2003).
Unlike EEG and MEG, fMRI does not directly detect neural
activity, but rather the changes in blood-oxygenation that
129
 Early Language Learning and Literacy
Fig. 1. Four techniques now used extensively with infants and young children to examine their responses to linguistic signals (from Kuhl &
Rivera-Gaxiola, 2008).
occur in response to neural activation. Neural events happen
in milliseconds; however, the blood-oxygenation changes that
they induce are spread out over several seconds, thereby
severely limiting fMRI’s temporal resolution. Few studies have
attempted fMRI with infants because the technique requires
infants to be perfectly still, and because the MRI device
produces loud sounds making it necessary to shield infants’
ears. fMRI studies allow precise localization of brain activity
and a few pioneering studies show remarkable similarity in
the structures responsive to language in infants and adults
(Dehaene-Lambertz et al., 2002, 2006).
NIRS also measures cerebral hemodynamic responses in
relation to neural activity, but utilizes the absorption of light,
which is sensitive to the concentration of hemoglobin, to
measure activation (Aslin & Mehler, 2005). NIRS measures
changes in blood oxy- and deoxy-hemoglobin concentrations
130
in the brain as well as total blood volume changes in various
regions of the cerebral cortex using near-infrared light. The
NIRS system can determine the activity in specific regions
of the brain by continuously monitoring blood hemoglobin
level. Reports have begun to appear on infants in the first two
years of life, testing infant responses to phonemes as well as
longer stretches of speech such as ‘‘motherese’’ and forward
versus reversed sentences (Bortfeld, Wruck, & Boas, 2007;
Homae, Watanabe, Nakano, Asakawa, & Taga, 2006; Peña,
Bonatti, Nespor, & Mehler, 2002; Taga & Asakawa, 2007).
As with other hemodynamic techniques such as fMRI, NIRS
typically does not provide good temporal resolution. However,
event-related NIRS paradigms are being developed (Gratton
& Fabiani, 2001a,b). One of the most important potential uses
of the NIRS technique is possible co-registration with other
testing techniques such as EEG and MEG.
Volume 5—Number 3
 Patricia K. Kuhl
LANGUAGE EXHIBITS A ‘‘CRITICAL PERIOD’’ FOR
LEARNING
A stage-setting concept for human language learning is the
graph shown in Figure 2, redrawn from a study by Johnson
and Newport (1989) on English grammar in native speakers
of Korean learning English as a second language. The graph
as rendered shows a simplified schematic of second language
competence as a function of the age of second language
acquisition.
Figure 2 is surprising from the standpoint of more general
human learning. In the domain of language, infants and
young children are superior learners when compared to
adults, in spite of adults’ cognitive superiority. Language
is one of the classic examples of a ‘‘critical’’ or ‘‘sensitive’’
period in neurobiology (Bruer, 2008; Johnson & Newport,
1989; Knudsen, 2004; Kuhl, 2004; Newport, Bavelier, &
Neville, 2001).
Does the ‘‘critical period’’ diagram mean that it is impossible
to learn a new language after childhood? Both anecdotal and
experimental evidence support the idea that the answer to
this question is ‘‘No.’’ A new language can be learned at
any age, but most agree that the level of expertise will
differ from that of a native speaker if exposure to the new
language occurs after puberty. After puberty, mastery of the
pronunciation and mastery of the grammar is unlikely to be
identical to that of a native speaker, although word learning
does not appear to be as sensitive to age and remains good
throughout life.
Scientists generally agree that the ‘‘critical period’’ learning
curve is representative of data across a wide variety of second-
language learning studies (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994; Birdsong
& Molis, 2001; Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999; Johnson &
Newport, 1989; Mayberry & Lock, 2003; Neville et al., 1997;
Weber-Fox & Neville, 1999; Yeni-Komshian, Flege, & Liu,
Fig. 2. The relationship between age of acquisition of a second
language and language skill (adapted from Johnson & Newport,
1989).
Volume 5—Number 3
2000; although see Birdsong, 1992; Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle,
1978; White & Genesee, 1996). However, only a few studies
have examined language learning in both children and adults.
Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1978) made such a comparison
and report that English speakers learning Dutch in Holland
over a 1-year period learned it most quickly and efficiently if
they were between 12 and 15 years of age, rather than younger
or older, which is a very intriguing result. More second-
language learning studies are needed that vary the age of the
learner, and assess both the speed of initial learning as well as
the final level of proficiency.
One important point is that not all aspects of language
exhibit the same temporally defined critical ‘‘window’’ as
that shown in Figure 2. The developmental timing of critical
periods for learning phonetic, lexical, and syntactic levels
of language vary, although studies cannot yet document the
precise timing at each individual level. Studies in typically
developing monolingual children indicate, for example, that
an important period for phonetic learning occurs prior to the
end of the first year, whereas syntactic learning flourishes
between 18 and 36 months of age. Vocabulary development
‘‘explodes’’ at 18 months of age. One goal of future research is to
identify the optimum learning periods for phonological, lexical,
and grammatical levels of language, so that we understand
how they overlap and differ. This in turn will assist in the
development of novel methods that improve second-language
learning at all ages.
Given the current state of research, there is widespread
agreement that we do not learn equally well over the lifespan.
Theoretical work is therefore focused on attempts to explain
the phenomenon. What accounts for adults’ inability to
learn a new language with the facility of an infant? One
of the candidate explanations was Lenneberg’s hypothesis
that development of the corpus callosum affected language
learning (Lenneberg, 1967; Newport et al., 2001). More recent
hypotheses take a different perspective. Newport raised
a ‘‘less is more’’ hypothesis, which suggests that infants’
limited cognitive capacities actually allow superior learning
of the simplified language spoken to infants (Newport, 1990).
Work in my laboratory led me to advance the concept
of neural commitment, the idea that neural circuitry and
overall architecture develops early in infancy to detect the
phonetic and prosodic patterns of speech (Kuhl, 2004; Zhang,
Kuhl, Imada, Kotani, & Tohkura, 2005; Zhang et al., 2009).
This architecture is designed to maximize the efficiency of
processing for the language(s) experienced by the infant.
Once established, the neural architecture arising from French
or Tagalog, for example, impedes learning of new patterns that
do not conform. I will return to the concept of the critical
period for language learning, and the role that computational,
cognitive, and social skills may play in accounting for the
relatively poor performance of adults attempting to learn a
second language.
131
 Early Language Learning and Literacy
PHONETIC LEARNING
Perception of the phonetic units of speech—the vowels and
consonants that make up words—is one of the most widely
studied linguistic skills in infancy and adulthood. Phonetic
perception and the role of experience in learning can be studied
in children at birth, during development as they are bathed
in a particular language, in adults from different cultures, in
children with developmental disabilities, and in nonhuman
animals. Phonetic perception studies provide critical tests
of theories of language development and its evolution. An
extensive literature on developmental speech perception exists
and brain measures are adding substantially to our knowledge
of phonetic development and learning (see Kuhl, 2004; Kuhl
et al., 2008; Werker & Curtin, 2005).
The world’s languages contain approximately 600 conso-
nants and 200 vowels (Ladefoged, 2001). Each language uses
a unique set of about 40 distinct elements, phonemes, which
change the meaning of a word (e.g. from bat to pat in English).
But phonemes are actually groups of non-identical sounds, pho-
netic units, which are functionally equivalent in the language.
Japanese-learning infants have to group the phonetic units r
and l into a single phonemic category (Japanese r), whereas
English-learning infants must uphold the distinction to sep-
arate rake from lake. Similarly, Spanish-learning infants must
distinguish phonetic units critical to Spanish words (bano and
pano), whereas English-learning infants must combine them
into a single category (English b). If infants were exposed
only to the subset of phonetic units that will eventually be
used phonemically to differentiate words in their language,
the problem would be trivial. But infants are exposed to many
more phonetic variants than will be used phonemically, and
have to derive the appropriate groupings used in their specific
language. The baby’s task in the first year of life, therefore, is
to make some progress in figuring out the composition of the
40 odd phonemic categories in their language(s) before trying
to acquire words that depend on these elementary units.
Learning to produce the sounds that will characterize
infants as speakers of their ‘‘mother tongue’’ is equally
challenging, and is not completely mastered until the age
of 8 years (Ferguson, Menn, & Stoel-Gammon, 1992). Yet, by
10 months of age, differences can be discerned in the babbling
of infants raised in different countries (de Boysson-Bardies,
1993), and in the laboratory, vocal imitation can be elicited by
20 weeks (Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1982). The speaking patterns we
adopt early in life last a lifetime (Flege, 1991). My colleague and
I have suggested that this kind of indelible learning stems from
a linkage between sensory and motor experience; sensory
experience with a specific language establishes auditory
patterns stored in memory that are unique to that language,
and these representations guide infants’ successive motor
approximations until a match is achieved (Kuhl & Meltzoff,
1996). This ability to imitate vocally may also depend on
132
the brain’s social understanding mechanisms which form
a human mirroring system for seamless social interaction
(Hari & Kujala, 2009).
What enables the kind of learning we see in infants for
speech? No machine in the world can derive the phonemic
inventory of a language from natural language input (Rabiner
& Huang, 1993), although models improve when exposed
to ‘‘motherese,’’ the linguistically simplified and acoustically
exaggerated speech that adults universally use when speaking
to infants (de Boer & Kuhl, 2003). The variability in speech
input is simply too enormous; Japanese adults produce both
English r- and l-like sounds, exposing Japanese infants to
both sounds (Lotto, Sato, & Diehl, 2004; Werker et al., 2007).
How do Japanese infants learn that these two sounds do not
distinguish words in their language, and that these differences
should be ignored? Similarly, English speakers produce
Spanish b and p, exposing American infants to both categories
of sound (Abramson & Lisker, 1970). How do American infants
learn that these sounds are not important in distinguishing
words in English? An important discovery in the 1970s was that
infants initially hear all these phonetic differences (Eimas, 1975;
Eimas, Siqueland, Jusczyk, & Vigorito, 1971; Lasky, Syrdal-
Lasky, & Klein, 1975; Werker & Lalonde, 1988). What we
must explain is how infants learn to group phonetic units into
phonemic categories that make a difference in their language.
THE TIMING OF PHONETIC LEARNING
An important discovery in the 1980s identified the timing of
a crucial change in infant perception. The transition from an
early universal perceptual ability to distinguish all the phonetic
units of all languages to a more language-specific pattern of
perception occurred very early in development—between 6
and 12 months of age (Werker & Tees, 1984), and initial
work demonstrated that infants’ perception of non-native
distinctions declines during the second half of the first year of
life (Best & McRoberts, 2003; Rivera-Gaxiola, Silvia-Pereyra,
& Kuhl, 2005b; Tsao, Liu, & Kuhl, 2006; Werker & Tees, 1984).
Work in this laboratory also established a new fact: At the same
time that non-native perception declines, native-language
speech perception shows a significant increase. Japanese
infants’ discrimination of English r-l declines between 8 and
10 months of age, whereas at the same time in development
American infants’ discrimination of the same sounds shows an
increase (Kuhl et al., 2006) (Figure 3).
We argued that the increase observed in native-language
phonetic perception represented a critical step in initial
language learning (Kuhl et al., 2006). In later studies testing
the same infants on both native and non-native phonetic
contrasts, we showed a significant negative correlation
between discrimination of the two kinds of contrasts—as
native speech perception abilities increased in a particular
Volume 5—Number 3
 Patricia K. Kuhl

Fig. 3. Effects of age on discrimination of the American English /ra-

la/ phonetic contrast by American and Japanese infants at 6–8 and
10–12 months of age. Mean percent correct scores are shown with
standard errors indicated (adapted from Kuhl et al., 2006).
child, that child’s non-native abilities declined (Kuhl, Conboy,
Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005b). This was precisely what
our model of early language predicted (Kuhl, 2004; Kuhl et al.,
2008). In the early period, our data showed that although
better discrimination on a native contrast predicts rapid
growth in later language abilities, better discrimination on non-
native contrasts predicts slower language growth (Kuhl et al.,
2005b, 2008). Better native abilities enhanced infants’ skills in
detecting words and this vaulted them toward language,
whereas better non-native abilities indicated that infants
remained in an earlier phase of development—sensitive to all
phonetic differences. Infants’ ability to learn which phonetic
units are relevant in the language(s) they experience, while
decreasing or inhibiting their attention to the phonetic units
that do not distinguish words in their language, is the necessary
step required to begin the path toward language—not auditory
acuity, per se, as better sensory abilities would be expected to
improve both native and non-native speech discrimination.
These data led to a theoretical model (Native Language
Magnet, expanded, or NLM-e, see Kuhl et al., 2008 for details)
which argues that an implicit learning process commits the
brain’s neural circuitry to the properties of native-language
speech, and that this neural commitment has bi-directional
effects—it increases learning for patterns (such as words) that
are compatible with the learned phonetic structure, whereas
decreasing perception of non-native patterns that do not match
the learned scheme.
WHAT ENABLES PHONETIC LEARNING BETWEEN
8 AND 10 MONTHS OF AGE?
Children’s Computational Skills
An implicit form of computational learning, referred to as
‘‘statistical learning’’ (Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996), was
discovered to play a role in infants’ transition from universal
to language-specific listeners. For example, studies show that
Fig. 4. Idealized case of distributional learning is shown. Two
women speak ‘‘motherese,’’ one in English and the other in Japanese.
Distributions of English /r/ and /l/, as well as Japanese /r/, are
tabulated. Infants are sensitive to these distributional cues and,
during the critical period, but only in a social context, plasticity is
induced (modified from Kuhl, 2010).
adult speakers of English and Japanese produce both English
r- and l-like sounds, so it is not the mere presence of the sound
in language spoken to infants that accounts for learning, but
instead the patterns of distributional frequency of sounds
across the two languages. The idealized model of learning
is shown in Figure 4. When infants listen to English and
Japanese, they take into account the distributional properties
of the phonetic units contained in the two languages. Infants
are sensitive to these distributional frequency differences
in language input, and the distributional data affects their
perception (Kuhl, Williams, Lacerda, Stevens, & Lindblom,
1992; Maye, Weiss, & Aslin, 2008; Maye, Werker, & Gerken,
2002; Teinonen, Fellman, Naatanen, Alku, & Huotilainen,
2009). In fact, it has been shown that these distributional
differences are exaggerated in ‘‘motherese,’’ the prosodically
and phonetically stretched utterances that are near universal
in language spoken to children around the world (Kuhl et al.,
1997; Vallabha, McClelland, Pons, Weker, & Amano, 2007;
Werker et al., 2007).
As illustrated in the idealized case (Figure 4), the
distributions of English and Japanese differ: English motherese
contains many English /r/ and /l/ sounds and very few of the
Japanese retroflex /r/ sounds, whereas the reverse is true for
Japanese motherese. A variety of studies show that infants pick
up the distributional frequency patterns in ambient speech,
whether they experience them during short-term laboratory
experiments or over months in natural environments, and that
this experience alters phonetic perception. Statistical learning
from the distributional properties in speech thus supports
infants’ transition in early development from the ‘‘universal’’
state of perception they exhibited at birth to the ‘‘native’’ state
of phonetic listening exhibited at the end of the first year
of life.

Volume 5—Number 3 133

 Early Language Learning and Literacy
From a theoretical standpoint, brain plasticity for speech
could be described as a statistical process. Infants build
up statistical distributions of the sounds contained in the
language they hear, and at some point these distributional
properties become stable—additional language input does
not cause the overall statistical distribution of sounds to
change substantially and, according to NLM-e, this would
cause the organism to become less sensitive to language
input. This change in plasticity with experience may be due
to a statistical process: when experience produces a stable
distribution of sounds, plasticity is reduced. Hypothetically,
a child’s distribution of the vowel ‘‘ah’’ might stabilize when
she hears her one-millionth token of the vowel ‘‘ah,’’ and this
stability could instigate a closure of the critical period. On
this account, plasticity is independent of time, and instead
dependent on the amount and the variability of input provided
by experience. The NLM-e account lends itself to testable
hypotheses, and empirical tests of the tenets of the model
are underway. Studies of bilingual infants, reviewed later in
this chapter, provide one example of an empirical test of the
model. In the case of bilingualism, increased variability in
language input may affect the rate at which distributional
stability is achieved in development. In other words, NLM-e
proposes that bilingual children stay ‘‘open’’ longer to the
effects of language experience, and therefore that bilingual
children will show distinct patterns in early development,
different from their monolingual peers (‘‘Bilingual Language
Learners’’ section). From a statistical standpoint, bilingual
children may achieve a stable distribution of the sounds in their
two languages at a later point in development when compared
to monolingual children, therefore exhibiting greater plasticity
than monolingual children at the same age. Experience drives
plasticity.
The Social Component: A Possible Trigger for Critical
Period Onset?
New studies suggested that infants’ computational abilities
alone could not account for phonetic learning. Our studies
demonstrated that infant language learning in complex
natural environments required something more than raw
computation. Laboratory studies testing infant phonetic and
word learning from exposure to complex natural language
demonstrated limits on statistical learning, and provided
new information suggesting that social brain systems are
integrally involved and, in fact, may be necessary to trigger
natural language learning (Kuhl, Tsao, & Liu, 2003; Conboy
& Kuhl, 2011).
The new experiments tested infants in the following way:
At 9 months of age, when the initial universal pattern of
infant perception is changing to one that is more language-
specific, infants were exposed to a foreign language for the
first time (Kuhl et al., 2003). Nine-month-old American infants
134
listened to four different native speakers of Mandarin during
12 sessions scheduled over 4–5 weeks. The foreign-language
‘‘tutors’’ read books and played with toys in sessions that
were unscripted. A control group was also exposed for 12
sessions but heard only English from native speakers. After
infants in the experimental Mandarin exposure group and
the English control group completed their sessions, they were
tested with a Mandarin phonetic contrast that does not occur
in English. Both behavioral and ERP methods were used. The
results indicated that infants showed a remarkable ability to
learn from the ‘‘live-person’’ sessions—after exposure, they
performed significantly better on the Mandarin contrast when
compared to the control group that heard only English. In fact,
they performed equivalently to infants of the same age tested
in Taiwan who had been listening to Mandarin for 10 months
(Kuhl et al., 2003).
The study revealed that infants can learn from first-time
natural exposure to a foreign language at 9 months, and
answered what was initially the experimental question: Can
infants learn the statistical structure of phonemes in a new
language given first-time exposure at 9 months of age? If infants
required a long-term history of listening to that language—as
would be the case if infants needed to build up statistical
distributions over the initial 9 months of life—the answer
to our question would have been no. However, the data
clearly showed that infants are capable of learning at 9 months
when exposed to a new language. Moreover, learning was
durable. Infants returned to the laboratory for their behavioral
discrimination tests between 2 and 12 days after the final
language-exposure session, and between 8 and 33 days for
their ERP measurements. No ‘‘forgetting’’ of the Mandarin
contrast occurred during the 2- to 33-day delay.
We were struck by the fact that infants exposed to
Mandarin were socially very engaged in the language sessions
and began to wonder about the role of social interaction
in learning. Would infants learn if they were exposed to
the same information in the absence of a human being,
say, via television or an audiotape? If statistical learning is
sufficient, the television and audio-only conditions should
produce learning. Infants who were exposed to the same
foreign-language material at the same time and at the same
rate, but via standard television or audiotape only, showed
no learning—their performance equaled that of infants in the
control group who had not been exposed to Mandarin at all
(Figure 5).
Thus, the presence of a human being interacting with
the infant during language exposure, while not required for
simpler statistical-learning tasks (Maye et al., 2002; Saffran
et al., 1996), is critical for learning in complex natural
language-learning situations (Kuhl et al., 2003). Using the
same experimental design, this work has been extended to
Spanish and included measures beyond Kuhl et al. (2003);
these studies demonstrated that infants not only learn Spanish
Volume 5—Number 3
 Patricia K. Kuhl

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5. The need for social interaction in language acquisition is shown by foreign-language learning experiments. Nine-month-old infants
experienced 12 sessions of Mandarin Chinese through (a) natural interaction with a Chinese speaker (left) or the identical linguistic
information delivered via television (right) or audiotape (not shown). (b) Natural interaction resulted in significant learning of Mandarin
phonemes when compared with a control group who participated in interaction using English (left). No learning occurred from television
or audiotaped presentations (middle). Data for age-matched Chinese and American infants learning their native languages are shown for
comparison (right) (adapted from Kuhl et al., 2003).

phonemes (Conboy & Kuhl, 2011) but also Spanish words
they were exposed to during the language-exposure sessions
(Conboy & Kuhl, 2010). Moreover, our work demonstrates
that individual differences in infants’ social behaviors during
the Spanish exposure sessions is significantly correlated to the
degree to which infants learn both phonemes and words, as
indicated by the relationship between social behaviors during
the sessions and brain measures documenting learning post-
exposure (Conboy, Brooks, Meltzoff, & Kuhl, submitted).
These studies show that infants’ computational abilities
are enabled by social interaction, a situation mirrored in
neurobiological studies on vocal communication learning in
other species, such as birds (Doupe & Kuhl, 2008). The
notion that social interaction acts as a ‘‘gate’’ for infants initial
language learning has important implications for children with
autism that we are beginning to explore (see Kuhl, 2011; Kuhl
et al., 2005a; Kuhl, 2007). The broader role of sociocultural
context on language learning is also illustrated in studies
focusing on language and brain in children from families with
low SES (see Raizada, Richards, Meltzoff, & Kuhl, 2008;
Stevens, Lauinger, & Neville, 2009).
The model we have developed indicates that perhaps it
is the interaction between computational skills and social
cognition that opens plasticity for language learning. Infants
have computational skills from birth (Teinonen et al., 2009).
The fact that effects of linguistic experience on phonetic
perception are not observed until 8 months of age is of interest
to theory. We speculated that infants might require 8 months
of listening to build up reliable statistical distributions of the
sounds contained in the language they experienced. This idea
in fact was the impetus for the Kuhl et al. (2003) investigation,
which examined whether infants could learn from first-time

Volume 5—Number 3 135

 Early Language Learning and Literacy
foreign-language exposure at 9 months of age. Our results
verified that 9-month-old infants did not require 8 months of
listening to learn from experiencing a new language—they
learned after less than 5 hr of exposure to a new language, but
only in a social context.
These data raise the prospect that infants’ social skills
which develop at about this time—their ability to track
eye movements, achieve joint visual attention, and begin
to understand others’ communicative intentions—serve as
a plasticity trigger. Social understanding might be the ‘‘gate’’
that initiates plasticity for phonetic learning in human infants
(Kuhl, 2011). There is a neurobiological precedent for a social
interaction plasticity trigger in songbirds: it is well established
that a more natural social setting prompts learning and that
manipulating social factors can either shorten or extend the
optimum period for learning (Knudsen, 2004; Woolley &
Doupe, 2008). The possibility of a social interaction plasticity
trigger in humans raises many new questions, and also has
implications for developmental disabilities (see Kuhl, 2011 for
discussion).
Bilingual Language Learning
According to our modeling, bilingual language learners would
be expected to follow the same principles as monolingual
learners—both computational and social factors influence the
period of plasticity. Nonetheless, we argue that this process
might result in a developmental transition that occurs at a
later point in time for bilingual infants than for monolingual
infants learning either language. We have argued that infants
learning two first languages simultaneously would remain
‘‘open’’ to experience for a longer period of time because they
are mapping language input in two forms, each with distinct
statistical distributions. Social experience often links the
statistical distributions for particular languages to individual
social partners, and thus perhaps assists infants in separating
the statistics of one language from another. If this reasoning is
correct, a longer period of time may be required to begin
to close the critical period in bilinguals because infants
must receive sufficient data from both languages to reach
distributional stability. This in turn depends on factors such
as the number of people in the infant’s environment producing
the two languages in speech directed toward the child, and
the amount of input each speaker in the infant’s environment
provides. It would be highly adaptive for bilingual infants
to remain perceptually ‘‘open’’ for a longer period of time.
Social interaction would play a role as well, in that people
in the bilingual child’s home often speak in their preferred
language. This social information may help infants assign the
statistical properties of language input to different languages.
If an infant’s mother speaks English and the child’s father
speaks Japanese, social information could allow the child to
mentally separate the properties of the two languages.
136
Only a few studies have addressed the timing of the per-
ceptual transition in bilingual infants and results have been
mixed, perhaps due to differences in methodology, differences
in the amount of language exposure to the two languages
in individual bilingual participants, and the specific char-
acteristics of the languages and speech contrasts studied.
Some studies have reported that bilingual infants show differ-
ent developmental patterns when compared to monolingual
infants. Bosch and Sebastián-Gallés (2003a) compared 4-, 8-
and 12-month-old infants from Spanish monolingual house-
holds, Catalan monolingual households, and Spanish-Catalan
bilingual households on a vowel contrast that is phonemic in
Catalan but not in Spanish (/ε/ vs. /e/). Their results showed
that 4-month-old infants discriminated the vowel contrast
but that at 8 months of age only infants exposed to Catalan
succeeded. Interestingly, the same group of bilinguals regained
their ability to discriminate the speech contrast at 12 months
of age. The authors reported the same developmental pat-
tern in bilingual infants in a study of consonants (Bosch &
Sebastián-Gallés, 2003b) and interpreted the results as evi-
dence that different processes may underlie bilingual versus
monolingual phoneme category formation (at least for speech
sounds with different distributional properties in each of the
two languages). Sebastián-Gallés and Bosch (2009) repro-
duced this pattern of results in two vowels (/o/ vs. /u/), which
are common to and contrastive in both languages. However,
Sebastián-Gallés and Bosch also tested bilingual and mono-
lingual Spanish/Catalan infants in their ability to discriminate
a second pair of vowels that is common to and contrastive in
both languages, but acoustically more salient (i.e., /e/ vs. /u/).
Eight-month-old bilinguals were able to discriminate this
acoustically distant contrast. The authors interpreted these
data as supporting the idea that differences may exist in mono-
lingual and bilingual phonetic development and that factors
in addition to the distributional frequency of phonetic units
in language input, such as lexical similarity, may play an
important role.
Other investigations have found that bilingual infants
discriminate phonetic contrasts in their native languages
on the same timetable as monolingual infants. For example,
Burns, Yoshida, Hill, and Werker (2007) tested consonant
discrimination using English and French sounds at 6–8, 10–12,
and 14–20 months in English monolingual and English–French
bilingual infants. As expected, 6- to 8-month-old English
monolingual infants discriminated both contrasts, whereas 10-
to 12- and 14- to 20-month-old English monolingual infants
discriminated only the English contrast. In bilingual infants, all
age groups were able to discriminate both contrasts. Sundara,
Polka, and Molnar (2008; see also Sundara & Scutellaro, in
press) produced similar findings.
We conducted the first longitudinal study of English–Span-
ish bilingual infants combining a brain measure of discrimina-
tion for phonetic contrasts in both languages (ERPs) in 6- to
Volume 5—Number 3
 Patricia K. Kuhl
9- and 10- to 12-month-old infants, with concurrent measures
of language input to the child in the home, and follow-up
examination of word production in both languages months
later (Garcia-Sierra et al., in press). The study addressed three
questions: Do bilingual infants show the ERP components
indicative of neural discrimination for the phonetic units of
both languages on the same timetable as monolingual infants?
Is there a relationship between brain measures of phonetic
discrimination and the amount of exposure to the two lan-
guages? Is later word production in the infants’ two languages
predicted by early ERP responses to speech sounds in both
languages, and/or the amount of early language exposure to
each of the two languages.
As predicted, bilingual infants displayed a developmental
pattern distinct from that of monolingual infants previously
tested using the same stimuli and methods (Rivera-Gaxiola,
Klarman, Garcia-Sierra, & Kuhl, 2005a; Rivera-Gaxiola et al.,
2005b). Our studies indicated that bilingual infants show
patterns of neural discrimination for their (two) native
languages at a later point in time when compared to
monolingual infants (Garcia-Sierra et al., in press). The data
suggest that bilingual infants remain ‘‘open’’ to language
experience longer than monolingual infants, a response that
is highly adaptive to the increased variability in the language
input they experience.
We also showed that neural discrimination of English
and Spanish in these bilingual infants was related to the
amount of exposure to each language in the home—infants
who heard more Spanish at home had larger brain responses
to Spanish sounds, and the reverse was found in infants
who heard more English at home. Finally, we hypothesized a
relationship between the early brain measures and later word
production, as well as relationships between early language
exposure and later word production. Both hypotheses were
confirmed. Children who were English dominant in word
production at 15 months had shown relatively better early
neural discrimination of the English contrast, as well as
stronger early English exposure in the home. Similarly, children
who were Spanish dominant in word production at 15 months
had earlier shown relatively better neural discrimination
of the Spanish contrast and stronger Spanish exposure in
the home.
Taken as a whole, the results suggest that bilingual
infants tested with phonetic units from both of their native
languages stay perceptually ‘‘open’’ longer than monolingual
infants—indicating perceptual narrowing at a later point in
time, which is highly adaptive for bilingual infants. The results
reinforce the view that experience alters the course of brain
structure and function early in development. We also show
that individual differences in infants’ neural responses to
speech, as well as their later word production, are influenced
by the amount of exposure infants have to each of their native
languages at home.
Volume 5—Number 3
LANGUAGE, COGNITION, AND BILINGUAL LANGUAGE
EXPERIENCE
Specific cognitive abilities, particularly the executive control
of attention and the ability to inhibit a pre-potent response
(cognitive control), are affected by language experience. Bilin-
gual adult speakers are more cognitively flexible given novel
problems to solve (Bialystok, 1999, 2001; Bialystok & Hakuta,
1994; Wang, Kuhl, Chen, & Dong, 2009), as are young school-
aged bilingual children (Carlson & Meltzoff, 2008). We have
recent evidence that cognitive flexibility is also increased in
infants and young children who have short-term or long-
term exposure to more than one language. In the short-term
Spanish exposure studies described earlier, a median split
of infants based on their post-exposure brain measures of
Spanish-language learning revealed that the best learners (top
half of the distribution) have post-exposure cognitive flexi-
bility scores that are significantly higher than infants whose
Spanish-language learning scores put them in the lowest half
of the distribution (Conboy, Sommerville, & Kuhl, 2008). In a
second experiment, we linked brain measures of word recog-
nition in both languages to cognitive flexibility scores in 24- to
29-month-old bilingual children—those with enhanced brain
measures in response to words in both their languages show
the highest cognitive flexibility scores (Conboy et al., 2011).
These data provide further evidence that experience shapes
the brain; bilingual adults and children have advanced skills
when coping with tasks that require the ability to ‘‘reverse
the rules’’ and think flexibly. These skills could aid various
forms of learning in school, and educators should be aware of
them. At the same time, the cognitive flexibility induced by
experience with two languages may play a role in bilingual
children remaining open to language experience longer in
development, which changes the timetable of learning.
Further research is needed to examine in detail the implica-
tions for bilingual language learning and literacy—studies on
bilingual learning have just begun and will be a strong focus
for neuroscience and education in the next decade.
EARLY LANGUAGE LEARNING PREDICTS LATER
LANGUAGE SKILLS
Early language learning is a complex process. Our working
hypothesis is the following: Infants computational skills,
modulated by social interaction, open a window of increased
plasticity at about 8 months of life. Between 8- and 10-month-
old monolingual infants show an increase in native-language
phonetic perception, a decrease in non-native phonetic
perception, and remain open to phonetic learning from a
new language that can be induced by social experience with
a speaker of that language (although not via a standard TV
experience). The complexity of learning in this early phase
137
 Early Language Learning and Literacy
is not trivial, and that complexity might explain why our
laboratory studies show wide individual differences in the
early phonetic transition. An important question, especially for
practice, was suggested by these data: Is an individual child’s
success at this early transition toward language indicative of
future language skills or literacy?
We began studies to determine whether the variability
observed in measures of early phonetic learning predicted
children’s language skills measured at later points in
development. We recognized that it was possible that the
variability we observed was simply ‘‘noise,’’ in other words,
random variation in a child’s skill on the particular day
that we measured that child in the laboratory. We were
therefore pleased when our first studies demonstrated that
infants’ discrimination of two simple vowels at 6 months of
age was significantly correlated with their language skills
at 13, 16, and 24 months of age (Tsao, Liu, & Kuhl, 2004).
Later studies confirmed the connection between early speech
perception and later language skills using both brain (Rivera-
Gaxiola et al., 2005a; Kuhl et al., 2008) and behavioral (Kuhl
et al., 2005b) measures on monolingual infants, and with
bilingual infants using brain measures (Garcia-Sierra et al., in
press). Other laboratories also produced data that indicated
strong links between the speed of speech processing and later
language function (Fernald, Perfors, & Marchman, 2006) and
between various measures of statistical learning and later
language measures (Newman, Ratner, Jusczyk, Jusczyk, &
Dow, 2006).
Recent data from our laboratory indicate long-term
associations between early measures of infants’ phonetic
perception and future language and reading skills. The new
work measures vowel perception at 7 and 11 months and shows
that the trajectory of learning between those two ages predicts
the children’s language abilities and pre-literacy skills at the
age of 5 years—the association holds regardless of SES, as well
as the level of children’s language skills at 18 and 24 months of
age (Cardillo Lebedeva & Kuhl, 2009).
Infants tested at 7 and 11 months of age show three patterns
of speech perception development: (1) infants who show
excellent native discrimination at 7 months and maintain
that ability at 11 months, the high–high group, (2) infants who
show poor abilities at 7 months but excellent performance
at 11 months, the low–high group, and (3) infants who show
poor abilities to discriminate at both 7 and 11 months of age,
the low–low group. We followed these children until the age
of 5, assessing language skills at 18 months, 24 months, and
5 years of age. Strong relationships were observed between
infants’ early speech perception performance and their later
language skills at 18 and 24 months. At 5 years of age,
significant relationships were shown between infants’ early
speech perception performance and both their language skills
and the phonological awareness skills associated with success
in learning to read. In all cases, the earlier in development
138
that infants showed excellent skills in detecting phonetic
differences in native-language sounds, the better their later
performance in measures of language and pre-literacy skills
(Cardillo Lebedeva & Kuhl, 2009).
These results are theoretically interesting and also highly
relevant to early learning practice. These data show that
the initial steps that infants take toward language learning
are important to their development of language and literacy
years later. Our data suggest as well that these early
differences in performance are strongly related to experience.
Our studies reveal that these early measures of speech
discrimination, which predict future language and literacy,
are strongly correlated to experience with ‘‘motherese’’
early in development (Liu, Kuhl, & Tsao, 2003). Motherese
exaggerates the critical acoustic cues in speech (Kuhl et al.,
1997; Werker et al., 2007), and infants’ social interest in speech
is, we believe, important to the social learning process. Thus,
talking to children early in life, reading to them early in life,
and interacting socially with children around language and
literacy activities creates the milieu in which plasticity during
the critical period can be maximized for all children.
There is increasing evidence that children raised in families
with lower SES show deficits in language measured either
behaviorally or in brain studies (for extensive review, see
Raizada & Kishiyama, 2010). In one of the first studies
of 5-year-old children combining behavioral and brain
measures, Raizada et al. (2008) examined the associations
between standardized test scores of language, social cognition,
intelligence, SES, and fMRI-measured brain activity as the
5-year-old children worked on a rhyming task. The results
showed correlations between SES, language performance, and
the degree of hemispheric specialization in Broca’s area, as
measured by left-minus-right fMRI activation (Figure 6). The
SES-Broca’s link remained highly significant after the effects of
the language scores were removed, indicating the relationship
cannot be attributed to both measures’ correlations with the
language scores. The study shows a correlational link, which
of course we cannot assume to be causal.
The authors concluded that fMRI is a more sensitive
measure of the development of Broca’s area than any of the
behavioral tests; each behavioral score is a compound function
of perception, cognition, attention, and motor control, whereas
fMRI probes Broca’s more directly. Thus, neuroimaging
studies, especially early in development, may be able to provide
us with highly sensitive measures of competence.
We assumed that SES is not itself the variable driving
these effects on the brain—SES is likely a proxy for the
opportunity to learn. We learned in a follow-up study that
SES could be removed from the equation if language input
itself was measured. The complexity of language input is the
more direct factor influencing development of brain areas that
code language. When measures of the complexity of maternal
language were assessed across the entire sample of children in
Volume 5—Number 3
 Patricia K. Kuhl
(a)
Fig. 6. Relationship between left hemisphere specialization in Broca’s area (a) and SES in 5-year-old children (b) (from Raizada et al., 2008).
the study, we observed a correlation with structural measures
of the brain in Broca’s area. These measures indicated that
greater gray matter in the left hemisphere language areas was
related to the complexity of maternal language in conversations
between the mothers and their 5-year-old children.
In summary, our results suggested that language input to the
child—its complexity and diversity—was the factor affecting
brain development in the language areas, not SES per se. The
implication is that children’s brains literally depend on input
for development. Although these results are correlational, we
believe that the connection between experience with language
and brain development is potentially causal and that further
research will allow us to develop causal explanations.
DISCUSSION
There are two important implications of these data. The first
is that early language learning is highly social. Children do not
compute statistics indiscriminately. Social cues ‘‘gate’’ what
and when children learn from language input. Machines are
not sufficient as instructors, at least in the early period and
when standard machines such as television sets are used as
the instructor. Further studies are needed to test whether
our work suggesting that language learning must be social
to ‘‘stick’’ applies to other learning domains—must cognitive
learning or learning about numbers be social?
Studies will also be needed to determine the ages at
which the social context conclusion applies—infants are
predisposed to attend to people and do not learn from
TVs, but that conclusion does not apply to older children,
teenagers, or adult learners. What is it about social learning
that is so important to the young? Animal models show
that neurosteroids modulate brain activity during social
interactions (Remage-Healey, Maidment, & Schlinger, 2008)
Volume 5—Number 3
(b)
and previous work has shown that social interaction can
extend the ‘‘critical period’’ for learning in birds (Brainard
& Knudsen, 1998). Social factors play a role in learning
throughout life. The prevalence, across age, of new social
technologies (text messaging, Facebook, Twitter) indicates
a strong human drive for social communication. Technology
used for teaching is increasingly embodying the principles
of social interaction to enhance student learning (Koedinger
& Aleven, 2007). A true understanding of the nature of the
relationship between social interaction and learning requires
more research, and the NSF-funded LIFE Center is focused
on this question across domains and ages (see LIFE Web site:
http://life-slc.org).
The fact that young children use implicit and automatic
mechanisms to learn and that children’s brains are influenced
by the ambient information they experience is a sobering
thought. Opportunities for learning of the right kind must
be available for children to maximize the unique learning
abilities that their brains permit during the early period of
life. Scientists of course do not yet know how much or what
kinds of experience are necessary for learning—we cannot
write an exact prescription for success. Nonetheless, the data
on language and literacy indicate a potent and necessary
role for ample early experience, in social settings, in which
complex language is used to encourage children to express
themselves and explore the world of books. Further data will
refine these conclusions and allow us to develop concrete
recommendations that will enhance the probability that all
children the world over maximize their brain development
and learning.
Acknowledgments —This study was supported by a grant
from the National Science Foundation’s Science of Learning
Program to the LIFE Center (SBE-0354453), and by grants
from the National Institutes of Health (HD37954, HD55782,
139
 Early Language Learning and Literacy

HD02274, DC04661). The review updates information in Kuhl Cardillo Lebedeva, G. C., & Kuhl, P. K. (2009). Individual differences
(2010). in infant speech perception predict language and pre-reading
skills through age 5 years. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Society for Developmental & Behavioral
REFERENCES Pediatrics. Portland, OR.
Cheour, M., Imada, T., Taulu, S., Ahonen, A., Salonen, J., & Kuhl, P. K.
Abramson, A. S., & Lisker, L. (1970). Discriminability along the (2004). Magnetoencephalography is feasible for infant assess-
voicing continuum: Cross-language tests. Proceedings of the ment of auditory discrimination. Experimental Neurology, 190,
International Congress of Phonetics Science, 6, 569–573. S44–S51.
Aslin, R. N., & Mehler, J. (2005). Near-infrared spectroscopy for Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Estes, A., & Kuhl, P. K. (2011, May).
functional studies of brain activity in human infants: Promise, ERPs to words in toddlers with ASD predict behavioral measures
prospects, and challenges. Journal of Biomedical Optics, 10, 11009. at 6 years of age. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the
Best, C. C., & McRoberts, G. W. (2003). Infant perception of non- International Meeting for Autism Research, San Diego, CA.
native consonant contrasts that adults assimilate in different Conboy, B. T., Brooks, R., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (submitted).
ways. Language and Speech, 46, 183–216. Infants’ social behaviors predict phonetic learning.
Bialystok, E. (1991). Letters, sounds, and symbols: Changes in chil- Conboy, B. T., & Kuhl, P. K. (2010, November). Brain responses
dren’s understanding of written language. AppliedPsycholinguistics, to words in 11-month-olds after second language exposure.
12, 75–89. Poster presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in Association, Philadelphia, PA.
the bilingual mind. Child Development, 70, 636–644. Conboy, B. T., & Kuhl, P. K. (2011). Impact of second-language
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and experience in infancy: Brain measures of first- and second-
cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. language speech perception. Developmental Science, 14, 242–248.
Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words: The science and Conboy, B. T., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Silva-Pereyra, J., & Kuhl, P. K.
psychology of second-language acquisition. New York: Basic Books. (2008). Event-related potential studies of early language
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language processing at the phoneme, word, and sentence levels. In
acquisition. Language, 68, 706–755. A. D. Friederici & G. Thierry (Eds.), Early language development:
Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational Vol. 5. Bridging brain and behavior, trends in language acquisition research
constraints in second-language acquisitions. Journal of Memory (pp. 23–64). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
and Language, 44, 235–249. Conboy, B. T., Sommerville, J., & Kuhl, P. K. (2008). Cognitive
de Boer, B., & Kuhl, P. K. (2003). Investigating the role of infant- control skills and speech perception after short term second
directed speech with a computer model. ARLO, 4, 129–134. language experience during infancy. Journal of the Acoustical Society
Bortfeld, H., Wruck, E., & Boas, D. A. (2007). Assessing infants’ of America, 123, 3581.
cortical response to speech using near-infrared spectroscopy. Conboy, B. T., Sommerville, J. A., Wicha, N., Romo, H. D., & Kuhl,
NeuroImage, 34, 407–415. P. K. (2011, March–April) Word processing and cognitive
Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2003a). Simultaneous bilingualism control skills in two-year-old bilingual children. Symposium
and the perception of a language-specific vowel contrast in the presentation at the 2011 Biennial Meeting for the Society for
first year of life. Language and Speech, 46, 217–243. Research in Child Development, Montreal, Canada.
Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2003b). Language experience and Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Dehaene, S., & Hertz-Pannier, L. (2002).
the perception of a voicing contrast in fricatives: Infant and adult Functional neuroimaging of speech perception in infants. Science,
data. In D. Recasens, M. J. Solé, & J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings 298, 2013–2015
of the 15th international conference of phonetic sciences (pp. 1987–1990). Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Hertz-Pannier, L., Dubois, J., Meriaux, S.,
Barcelona, Spain: UAB/Casual Prods. Roche, A., Sigman, M., et al. (2006). Functional organization
de Boysson-Bardies, B. (1993). Ontogeny of language-specific syllabic of perisylvian activation during presentation of sentences in
productions. In B. de Boysson-Bardies, S. de Schonen, P. Jusczyk, preverbal infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
P. McNeilage, & J. Morton (Eds.), Developmental neurocognition: (USA), 103, 14240–14245.
Speech and face processing in the first year of life (pp. 353–363). Doupe, A. J., & Kuhl, P. K. (2008). Birdsong and human speech:
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Common themes and mechanisms. In H. P. Zeigler & P. Marler
Brainard, M. S., & Knudsen, E. I. (1998). Sensitive periods for visual (Eds.), Neuroscience of birdsong (pp. 5–31). Cambridge, UK:
calibration of the auditory space map in the barn owl optic Cambridge University Press.
tectum. The Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 3929–3942. Eimas, P. D. (1975). Auditory and phonetic coding of the cues for
Bruer, J. T. (2008). Critical periods in second language learning: speech: Discrimination of the /r–l/ distinction by young infants.
Distinguishing phenomena from explanation. In M. Mody & Perception and Psychophysics, 18, 341–347.
E. Silliman (Eds.), Brain, behavior and learning in language and reading Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech
disorders (pp. 72–96). New York: Guilford. perception in infants. Science, 171, 303–306.
Burns, T. C., Yoshida, K. A., Hill, K., & Werker, J. F. (2007). The Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (Eds.). (1992).
development of phonetic representation in bilingual and Phonological development: Models, research, implications. Timonium,
monolingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 455–474. MD: York Press.
Carlson S. M., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Bilingual experience and Fernald, A., Perfors, A., & Marchman, V. A. (2006) Picking up speed
executive functioning in young children. Developmental Science, 11, in understanding: Speech processing efficiency and vocabulary
282–298. growth across the 2nd year. Developmental Psychology, 42, 98–116.

140 Volume 5—Number 3

 Patricia K. Kuhl
Flege, J. (1991). Age of learning affects the authenticity of voice onset
time (VOT) in stop consonants produced in a second language.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 395–411.
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints
on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language,
41, 78–104.
Friederici, A. D. (2005). Neurophysiological markers of early language
acquisition: From syllables to sentences. TrendsinCognitiveScience,
9, 481–488.
Garcia-Sierra, A., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Conboy, B. T., Romo, H.,
Percaccio, C. R., Klarman, L., et al. (in press). Bilingual language
learning: An ERP study relating early brain responses to speech,
language input, and later word production. Journal of Phonetics.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Kaschak, M. P. (2003). Neuroimaging studies
of language production and comprehension. Annual Review of
Psychology, 54, 91–114.
Golestani, N., Molko, N., Dehaen, S., LeBihan, D., & Pallier, C. (2007).
Brain structure predicts the learning of foreign speech sounds.
Cerebral Cortex, 17, 575–582.
Gratton, G., & Fabiani, M. (2001a). Shedding light on brain function:
The event related optical signal. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5,
357–363.
Gratton, G., & Fabiani, M. (2001b). The event-related optical signal:
A new tool for studying brain function. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 42, 109–121.
Hari, R., & Kujala, M. (2009). Brain basis of human social interaction:
From concepts to brain imaging. Physiological Reviews, 89,
453–479.
Homae, F., Watanabe, H., Nakano, T., Asakawa, K., & Taga, G.
(2006). The right hemisphere of sleeping infant perceives
sentential prosody. Neuroscience Research, 54, 276–280.
Imada, T., Zhang, Y., Cheour, M., Taulu, S., Ahonen, A., & Kuhl, P. K.
(2006). Infant speech perception activates Broca’s area: A
developmental magnetoenceohalography study. NeuroReport, 17,
957–962.
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second
language learning: The influence of maturation state on the
acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology,
21, 60–99.
Knudsen, E. I. (2004). Sensitive periods in the development of the
brain and behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1412–1225.
Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance
dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.
Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech
code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831–843.
Kuhl, P. K. (2007). Is speech learning ‘gated’ by the social brain?
Developmental Science, 10, 110–120.
Kuhl, P. K. (2010, October). The linguistic genius of babies. A
TED Talk retrieved from TED.com website: http://www.
ted.com/talks/lang/eng/patricia_kuhl_the_linguistic_genius_of_
babies.html
Kuhl, P. K. (2011). Social mechanisms in early language acquisition:
Understanding integrated brain systems supporting language.
In J. Decety & J. Cacioppo (Eds.), Thehandbookofsocialneuroscience
(pp. 649–667). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A.,
Kozhevnikova, E. V., Ryskina, V. L., et al. (1997). Cross-
language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to
infants. Science, 277, 684–686.
Volume 5—Number 3
Kuhl, P. K., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., & Dawson, G. (2005a).
Links between social and linguistic processing of speech
in preschool children with autism: Behavioral and electro-
physiological evidence. Developmental Science, 8, 1–12.
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-
Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (2008). Phonetic learning as a
pathway to language: New data and native language magnet
theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, 979–1000.
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Padden, D., Nelson, T., & Pruitt, J. (2005b).
Early speech perception and later language development:
Implications for the ‘critical period.’ Language Learning and
Development, 1, 237–264.
Kuhl, P. K., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1982). The bimodal perception of
speech in infancy. Science, 218, 1138–1141.
Kuhl, P. K., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1996). Infant vocalizations in response
to speech: Vocal imitation and developmental change. Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2425–2438.
Kuhl, P. K., & Rivera-Gaxiola, M. (2008). Neural substrates of
language acquisition. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 511–534.
Kuhl, P. K., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., &
Iverson, P. (2006). Infants show facilitation for native language
phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental
Science, 9, 13–21.
Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F.-M., & Liu, H.-M. (2003). Foreign-language
experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and
social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (USA), 100, 9096–9101.
Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., & Lind-
blom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception
in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255, 606–608.
Ladefoged, P. (2001). Vowels and consonants: An introduction to the sounds
of language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Lasky, R. E., Syrdal-Lasky, A., & Klein, R. E. (1975). VOT discrim-
ination by four to six and a half month old infants from
Spanish environments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20,
215–225.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biologicalfoundationsoflanguage. New York: Wiley.
Liu, H.-M., Kuhl, P. K., & Tsao, F.-M. (2003). An association between
mothers’ speech clarity and infants’ speech discrimination skills.
Developmental Science, 6, F1–F10.
Lotto, A. J., Sato, M., & Diehl, R. (2004). Mapping the task for the
second language learner: The case of Japanese acquisition of /r/
and /l/. In J. Slitka, S. Manuel, & M. Matties (Eds.), From sound
to sense (pp. C181–C186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayberry, R. I., & Lock, E. (2003). Age constraints on first versus
second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity
and epigenesis. Brain and Language, 87, 369–384.
Maye, J., Weiss, D., & Aslin, R. (2008). Statistical learning in infants:
Facilitation and feature generalization. Developmental Science, 11,
122–134.
Maye, J., Werker, J. F., & Gerken, L. (2002). Infant sensitivity to
distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination.
Cognition, 82, B101–B111.
Meltzoff, A. N., Kuhl, P. K., Movellan, J., & Sejnowski, T. (2009).
Foundations for a new science of learning. Science, 17, 284–288.
Neville, H. J., Coffey, S. A., Lawson, D. S., Fischer, A., Emmorey, K.,
& Bellugi, U. (1997). Neural systems mediating American Sign
Language: Effects of sensory experience and age of acquisition.
Brain and Language, 57, 285–308.
141
 Early Language Learning and Literacy
Newman, R., Ratner, N. B., Jusczyk, A. M., Jusczyk, P. W., &
Dow, K. A. (2006). Infants’ early ability to segment the con-
versational speech signal predicts later language development:
A retrospective analysis. Developmental Psychology, 42, 643–655.
Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning.
Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28.
Newport, E. L., Bavelier, D., & Neville, H. J. (2001). Critical think-
ing about critical periods: Perspectives on a critical period for
language acquisition. In E. Dupoux (Ed.), Language, brain, and
cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jacques Mehler (pp. 481–502).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ortiz-Mantilla, S., Choe, M. S., Flax, J., Grant, P. E., & Benasich, A. A.
(2010). Association between the size of the amygdala in infancy
and language abilities during the preschool years in normally
developing children. NeuroImage, 49, 2791–2799.
Peña, M., Bonatti, L., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2002). Signal-driven
computations in speech processing. Science, 298, 604–607.
Rabiner, L. R., & Huang, B. H. (1993). Fundamentals of speech recognition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Remage-Healey, L., Maidment, N. T., & Schlinger, B. A. (2008). Fore-
brain steroid levels fluctuate rapidly during social interactions.
Nature Neuroscience, 11, 1327–1334.
Raizada, R. D. S., Richards, T. L., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K.
(2008). Socioeconomic status predicts hemispheric special-
ization of the left inferior frontal gyrus in young children.
NeuroImage, 40, 1392–1401.
Raizada, R. D. S., & Kishiyama, M. (2010). Effects of socioeconomic
status on brain development, and how cognitive neuroscience
may contribute to levelling the playing field. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 4, 3.
Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Klarman, L., Garcia-Sierra, A., & Kuhl, P. K.
(2005a). Neural patterns to speech and vocabulary growth
in American infants. NeuroReport, 16, 495–498.
Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Silvia-Pereyra, J., & Kuhl, P. K. (2005b). Brain
potentials to native and non-native speech contrasts in 7- and
11-month-old American infants. Developmental Science, 8, 162–172.
Saffran, J., Aslin, R., & Newport, E. (1996). Statistical learning by
8-month old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.
Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Bosch, L. (2009). Developmental shift in the
discrimination of vowel contrasts in bilingual infants: Is the
distributional account all there is to it? Developmental Science, 12,
874–887.
Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978). The critical period for
language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning.
Child Development, 49, 1114–1128.
Stevens, C., Lauinger, B., & Neville, H. (2009). Differences in the neu-
ral mechanisms of selective attention in children from different
socioeconomic backgrounds: An event-related brain potential
study. Developmental Science, 12, 634–646.
Sundara, M., Polka, L., & Molnar, M. (2008). Development of coro-
nal stop perception: Bilingual infants keep pace with their
monolingual peers. Cognition, 108, 232–242.
Sundara, M., & Scutellaro, A. (in press). Rhythmic distance between
languages affects the development of speech perception in bilin-
gual infants. Journal of Phonetics.
Taga, G., & Asakawa, K. (2007). Selectivity and localization of corti-
cal response to auditory and visual stimulation in awake infants
aged 2 to 4 months. NeuroImage, 36, 1246–1252.
142
Teinonen, T., Fellman, V., Naatanen, R., Alku, P., & Huoti-
lainen, M. (2009). Statistical language learning in neonates
revealed by event-related brain potentials. BMC Neuroscience,
10, 21.
Travis, K. E., Leonard, M. K., Brown, T. T., Hagler, D. J., Jr., Curran, M.,
Dale, A. M., et al. (in press). Spaciotemporal neural dynamics of
word understanding in 12- to 18-month-old-infants. Cerebral
Cortex.
Tsao, F.-M., Liu, H.-M., & Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Speech perception in
infancy predicts language development in the second year of life:
A longitudinal study. Child Development, 75, 1067–1084.
Tsao, F.-M., Liu, H.-M., & Kuhl, P. K. (2006). Perception of native and
non-native affricate-fricative contrasts: Cross-language tests on
adults and infants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120,
2285–2294.
Vallabha, G. K., McClelland, J. L., Pons, F., Werker, J.F., & Amano, S.
(2007). Unsupervised learning of vowel categories from infant-
directed speech. ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences(USA),
104, 13273–13278.
Wang, Y., Kuhl, P. K., Chen, C., & Dong, Q. (2009). Sustained and
transient language control in the bilingual brain. NeuroImage, 47,
414–422.
Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1999). Functional neural subsys-
tems are differentially affected by delays in second language
immersion: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilinguals. In
D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period
hypothesis (pp. 23–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Werker, J. F., & Curtin, S. (2005). PRIMIR: A developmental frame-
work of infant speech processing. Language Learning and Develop-
ment, 1, 197–234.
Werker, J. F., & Lalonde, C. (1988). Cross-language speech percep-
tion: Initial capabilities and developmental change. Developmental
Psychology, 24, 672–683.
Werker, J. F., Pons, F., Dietrich, C., Kajikawa, S., Fais, L., &
Amano, S. (2007). Infant-directed speech supports phonetic
category learning in English and Japanese. Cognition, 103,
147–162.
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech percep-
tion: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year
of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 49–63.
White, L., & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue
of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition.
Second Language Research, 12, 233–265.
Woolley, S. C., & Doupe, A. J. (2008). Social context-induced song
variation affects female behavior and gene expression. Public
Library of Science Biology, 6, e62.
Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Flege, J. E., & Liu, S. (2000). Pronuncia-
tion proficiency in the first and second languages of Kore-
an–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3,
131–149.
Zhang, Y., Kuhl, P. K., Imada, T., Iverson, P., Pruitt, J., Stevens,
E. B., et al. (2009). Neural signatures of phonetic learning in
adulthood: A magnetoencephalography study. NeuroImage, 46,
226–240.
Zhang, Y., Kuhl, P. K., Imada, T., Kotani, M., & Tohkura, Y. (2005).
Effects of language experience: Neural commitment to language-
specific auditory patterns. NeuroImage, 26, 703–720.
Volume 5—Number 3